Vaccine news from the crusty Dr. Douglass (15 May 2011)

The good doctor has about the best copywriter around for this genre! I don't always agree with what he has to say, but I'm with him on these increasingly insane childhood vaccinations. Less is more in that department.
---------------

Risky new vaccine pushed on babies

The needle nuts are at it again -- and this time, they're pushing a dangerous vaccine on babies for a disease you shouldn't worry about in the first place.

The feds have signed off on a plan to give Menactra, a vaccine that's supposed to prevent invasive meningococcal disease, to babies as young as nine months old.

"The highest rate of meningococcal disease occurs in children under one year of age," said Dr. Karen Midthun, director of FDA's Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research.

Sounds scary, right?

But here's what she didn't say: The overall odds of dying of meningococcal disease are so low you're more likely to be hit by lightning TWICE!

The condition strikes just 2,500 Americans a year, killing 300 -- putting the risk of death at literally one in a million.

Now, I'm not heartless -- any death at all is tragic. If there was a safe and effective way to save 300 lives out of 300 million people, I'd sign up for it in an instant.

But this ain't it.

Take a look at this warning right on the front page of the vaccine's Web site, just past all the usual promises of pain, redness, swelling, headache and fatigue: "There is a potential for an increased chance of getting Guillain-Barré syndrome following vaccination. Vaccination with Menactra vaccine may not protect all individuals."

Talk about a double whammy -- an increased risk of a crippling and potentially deadly nervous system disorder AND the vaccine may not even work!

Health officials claim the Guillain-Barré risk is small... but get this: The World Health Organization says the odds of getting the syndrome following a Menactra vaccination are 1.25 in a million.

In other words, the risk of getting Guillain-Barré syndrome from the vaccine is actually slightly greater than the overall risk of dying of the disease the shot is supposed to (but might not) prevent.

You just can't make this stuff up!

I'm not done with vaccines -- keep reading for more...


Swine flu shot linked to sleep disease

If kids are looking sleepier than ever, it's not because some new TV show or videogame is keeping them up all night.

It's just their way of thanking you for getting them the swine flu shot.

European health officials have issued a frightening new warning that comes far too late for far too many: A swine flu shot already distributed to more than 30 million people in 47 countries has been linked to narcolepsy in children.

That's the rare sleep disease that can lead to serious daytime drowsiness and even cause victims to pass out without warning in the middle of normal activity.

Or maybe I should say the "once-rare" sleep disease, because it's now on the rise: Doctors have reported at least 247 new cases of narcolepsy across Europe in kids who were given GlaxoSmithKline's H1N1 vaccine, Pandemrix.

These were perfectly normal kids before... and now, they never know how much longer they'll be awake.

EU officials want new doses of Pandemrix to carry a label warning of the narcolepsy risk -- but that won't matter since most parents never even see a shot's packaging, much less get a chance to read the warning labels.

And who's still getting swine flu shots anyway?

No, the damage is already done -- and if your kid was affected, good luck trying to sue: Many governments indemnified vaccine makers as part of the rushed purchase agreements negotiated during the swine flu frenzy.

The bright side, for my American readers anyway, is that Pandemrix was never distributed here in the United States.

No, our shots have "only" been linked to conditions such as Guillain-Barré syndrome, a frightening disorder that can lead to paralysis or even death.

And around the world, people of all ages who got various swine flu shots passed out, got sick and some even dropped dead -- all to prevent a virus that turned out to be a whole lot of nothing.

Next time, take your chances with the flu. It's positively pleasant by comparison.

Your wake-up call,

William Campbell Douglass II, M.D.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Glia:

The good doctor has about the best copywriter around for this genre! ...

"The highest rate of meningococcal disease occurs in children under one year of age," said Dr. Karen Midthun, director of FDA's Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research. ...

But here's what she didn't say: ... The condition strikes just 2,500 Americans a year, killing 300 -- putting the risk of death at literally one in a million.

..."There is a potential for an increased chance of getting Guillain-Barré syndrome following vaccination. Vaccination with Menactra vaccine may not protect all individuals." ...

European health officials have issued a frightening new warning that comes far too late for far too many: A swine flu shot already distributed to more than 30 million people in 47 countries has been linked to narcolepsy in children.
... Doctors have reported at least 247 new cases of narcolepsy across Europe in kids who were given GlaxoSmithKline's H1N1 vaccine, Pandemrix. ....

---

Here are some reasons why sensationalized, crap articles like this should be scrutinized carefully before making a decision. The article compares 2,500 "Americans" to 300 deaths. OK, that's just in the US, and 300 dead is, well, 300 dead. Sounds like an avoidable 300 if this vaccine works. (I haven't studied it.) But what about the other 2,200? Does this illness cause permanent brain damage in a significant fraction of them? I wouldn't doubt it.

And this thing about Guillain-Barré syndrome. I remember debunking that one once before. Go back to a swine flu "epidemic" that never happened, but that 30 million people were vaccinated for. I think that was back in the early '70s. Some of the people who were vaccinated came down with GB syndrome and the vaccine was blamed. Thing is, if you take 30 million people who were NOT vaccinated the exact number of people could be expected to come down with GB. So the vaccine did NOT cause any illness, but for 30 years it was blamed and the "alternative" literature is still full of it on that topic.

The thing is that some people who take vaccines will become ill of one disease or another. It does NOT mean the vaccine caused the illness, just that a vaccinated person came down with it. I imagine the narcolepsy story fits in this category. Keep in mind that an increase in reported cases does NOT mean that there are more cases, only that more are being reported. This happens every time someone reports that there is cause and effect and people start looking for symptoms. We all love our kids and want them to be well. If something "we did to them" may have caused them harm, you bet we're going to look closely for the signs. This is why nearly every medical student has a "heart attack" in their first year of medical school.

So, not to worry citizens. The most important point of the article was the one that appears at the top of this post, and copy writers are seldom scientists.

-Jeff

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Braggi:

... The article compares 2,500 "Americans" to 300 deaths.

---

Wait a minute! I just caught a little mathematical sleight-of-hand. So 300 deaths out of 300 million people is one in a million, right? How about 300 out of ... how many under one-year-old people? All of a sudden that one in a million grows geometrically larger. Someone please let that hack writer know we don't have 300 million people under one year of age in this country.

Yup, a crap article. Ignore it.

-Jeff

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Glia:

TRisky new vaccine pushed on babies

The needle nuts are at it again -- and this time, they're pushing a dangerous vaccine on babies for a disease you shouldn't worry about in the first place.
... the condition strikes just 2,500 Americans a year, killing 300 -- putting the risk of death at literally one in a million.
... but get this: The World Health Organization says the odds of getting the syndrome following a Menactra vaccination are 1.25 in a million.

In other words, the risk of getting Guillain-Barré syndrome from the vaccine is actually slightly greater than the overall risk of dying of the disease the shot is supposed to (but might not) prevent.

---

Since I frequently criticize the anti-vaxer posts, I thought it only fair to compliment one that actually sounds credible. It's got a colorful intro, true enough. But the main argument, highlighting the statistics of benefit vs. harm, is exactly right. Whether it's accurate or not, I can't say; if I had a baby to vaccinate I'd try to confirm those claims. But that's the point! there's a clearly defined claim that -can- be checked out. Few of the articles I've read about this issue show any understanding about the risk/reward tradeoffs made by medical treatments - they don't seem to acknowledge that it's understood that bad results do occasionally happen after treatment. People are heavily wired to avoid action that creates harm. It's difficult to balance taking action causing harm against allowing harm by inaction.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by podfish:

... But the main argument, highlighting the statistics of benefit vs. harm, is exactly right. ...

---

Except that's it's not exactly right. It's exactly a lie. See my post above.

-Jeff

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Braggi:

Wait a minute! I just caught a little mathematical sleight-of-hand. So 300 deaths out of 300 million people is one in a million, right? How about 300 out of ... how many under one-year-old people? All of a sudden that one in a million grows geometrically larger. Someone please let that hack writer know we don't have 300 million people under one year of age in this country.

Yup, a crap article. Ignore it.

-Jeff

---

When pointing out what you believe to be "mathematical sleight-of-hand", it would be prudent to make sure that you aren't making errors in your own calculations. You have implied that all 300 of the deaths are in children under one year old. According to the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases, 50% of cases of meningococcal disease occur in people over 15 years of age, and fatality tends to increase with increasing age. In other words, most of the 300 deaths are not in children under one year old.

Laurel Blair, NTP
www.dynamicbalancenutrition.com

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by DynamicBalance:

... ]50% of cases of meningococcal disease occur in people over 15 years of age, and fatality tends to increase with increasing age.[/URL] In other words, most of the 300 deaths are not in children under one year old.

Laurel Blair, NTP
www.dynamicbalancenutrition.com

---

Aha! Caught me. You're right. I misread this: "The highest rate of meningococcal disease occurs in children under one year of age," said Dr. Karen Midthun, director of FDA's Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research.

It's still a crappy article. :wink:

-Jeff

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Braggi:

Except that's it's not exactly right. It's exactly a lie. See my post above.

-Jeff

---

sure, but the discussion's following the right track for once. ("Right" in the sense it doesn't depend solely on irrefutable individual world views and isn't hinting at nefarious machinations of behind-the-scene evildoers).

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Braggi:

Aha! Caught me. You're right. I misread this: "The highest rate of meningococcal disease occurs in children under one year of age," said Dr. Karen Midthun, director of FDA's Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research.

It's still a crappy article. :wink:

-Jeff

---

I agree it's not the greatest article, although probably for different reasons. I just don't think calling people "needle nuts" is a good way to convince others of your point of view.

Laurel Blair, NTP
www.dynamicbalancenutrition.com

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by DynamicBalance:

... I just don't think calling people "needle nuts" is a good way to convince others of your point of view.

---

Ummm, agreed. I wouldn't do that.

-Jeff

And the '300 out of 300 million' was an extrapolation to illustrate the statistical concept, not a reference to any particular demographic in any particular country.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by podfish:

sure, but the discussion's following the right track for once. ("Right" in the sense it doesn't depend solely on irrefutable individual world views and isn't hinting at nefarious machinations of behind-the-scene evildoers).

---

Depends on the audience. For the folks this guy is talking to, it's good alliterative schtick and it plays to their feelings (or suspicions) they have about a certain groups and industries.

Note that I did include the adjective "crusty" in the subject line!

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by DynamicBalance:

I agree it's not the greatest article, although probably for different reasons. I just don't think calling people "needle nuts" is a good way to convince others of your point of view.

Laurel Blair, NTP
www.dynamicbalancenutrition.com

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Glia:

Depends on the audience. For the folks this guy is talking to, it's good alliterative schtick and it plays to their feelings (or suspicions) they have about a certain groups and industries.

Note that I did include the adjective "crusty" in the subject line!

---

Yeah, I get that. It's just not the way I would personally choose to express myself in public, regardless of who the audience is, because it's disrespectful.

Laurel Blair, NTP
www.dynamicbalancenutrition.com

Well, surely you know the old saying about opinions: everyone has one! :wink:

Along those lines, I would not make digs at other people's posts and call them "crap" -- but that's just my opinion.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by DynamicBalance:

Yeah, I get that. It's just not the way I would personally choose to express myself in public, regardless of who the audience is, because it's disrespectful.

Laurel Blair, NTP
www.dynamicbalancenutrition.com

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Glia:

Well, surely you know the old saying about opinions: everyone has one! :wink:

Along those lines, I would not make digs at other people's posts and call them "crap" -- but that's just my opinion.

---

Totally. If you disagree with someone, it's so much more respectful and informative to give specifics as to why you disagree, rather than just being derogatory.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by DynamicBalance:

Totally. If you disagree with someone, it's so much more respectful and informative to give specifics as to why you disagree, rather than just being derogatory.

---

though sometimes it's appropriate to say 'that's a crap article because...' and if you refer back to his comment, that's what Jeff's done. Maybe it's not particularly respectful, but why pretend respect for an idea that's crap? kinda highlights the point you're trying to make, I think...

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Glia:

Well, surely you know the old saying about opinions: everyone has one! :wink:

Along those lines, I would not make digs at other people's posts and call them "crap" -- but that's just my opinion.

---

I do respect your opinion and I like reading Laurel's posts as well, so I'll try to respect your request here. I do get tired of responding to baseless allegations about vaccine safety but I suppose that's no excuse.

Mea Culpa.

-Jeff

PS. When we going to get together to take some "before" photos? :wink:

Or maybe cut the crap and just outline the reasoning without the inflammatory bit.

As it turns out, Jeff's reasoning in his critique was cr... ooops, off base.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by podfish:

though sometimes it's appropriate to say 'that's a crap article because...' and if you refer back to his comment, that's what Jeff's done. Maybe it's not particularly respectful, but why pretend respect for an idea that's crap? kinda highlights the point you're trying to make, I think...

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by podfish:

though sometimes it's appropriate to say 'that's a crap article because...' and if you refer back to his comment, that's what Jeff's done. Maybe it's not particularly respectful, but why pretend respect for an idea that's crap? kinda highlights the point you're trying to make, I think...

---

Yes, that is what Jeff did, although in this particular case, he was mistaken in his reasoning. I am more concerned about respect for people than for ideas. We can disagree about ideas, but there's no reason to be disrespectful of the person presenting the ideas. It just turns people off and makes them less likely to listen to what you have to say. We've all been wrong at one time or another, and it's not fun to get called names. This conversation isn't really the greatest example because in this exchange, there was nothing particularly offensive said by anyone on Wacco. The thing that annoyed me the most was the original article calling pro-vaccine people "needle nuts".

It just seems to me that it's way too common for people on opposite sides of an issue to paint the other side as evil, stupid, crazy, ill-intentioned, etc. I see this with issues as varied as vaccines, abortion, economics, and immigration policy. The reality is that the vast majority of people are basically doing what they believe is right from their perspective. I'd like to see more compassion for where other people are coming from, for their unique perspectives. These issues are rarely as simple as black and white.

Laurel Blair, NTP
www.dynamicbalancenutrition.com

In a way, this all turned out well; everyone has made their point in a civilized manner and mea culpas as necessary. It speaks to the quality of people who are here.

Now perhaps we can get back to our original missions: being informed, effective members of the community who are trying to make things better than we found them! :thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by DynamicBalance:

Yes, that is what Jeff did, although in this particular case, he was mistaken in his reasoning. ...

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Glia:

Or maybe cut the crap and just outline the reasoning without the inflammatory bit.

As it turns out, Jeff's reasoning in his critique was cr...

---

" ... credible?"

I never said my reasoning was off. I did misread a sentence. My points stand. It was a poorly written and unsupported article.

The bottom line of reasonable people will be to vaccinate kids against just about anything it's reasonable to vaccinate against.

-Jeff

Not sure if any readers here actually want to learn something about the topic of the discussion, but this article from 2006 describes the use of the vaccine in question in the first half of the discredited article above. It mentions using the vaccine only when a potentially fatal outbreak of the illness occurs in a community. This is nothing like proposing all infants get vaccinated along the lines of typical childhood vaccination programs.

So the main topic of the article above is a straw man. In other words, pure sensationalism designed to stir up anti-vaccination fervor. Below is the science:

https://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/43/1/49.full

-Jeff

More science, if you can stand it, below. This article discusses the very real consequences suffered by adolescents who come down with the illness. This isn't about the 300 who die, it's about the thousands who survive.

https://pediatrics.aappublications.o...23/3/e502.full

-Jeff